Carlos Roberto Rojas- Mondragon v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLOS ROBERTO ROJAS-
MONDRAGON,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-70518
Agency No. A201-240-589
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 26, 2017**
Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Carlos Roberto Rojas-Mondragon, a native of Nicaragua and a citizen of
both Nicaragua and Honduras, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”)
decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUN 30 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 16-70518
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings and review de novo questions of law. Wakkary v.
Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny in part and grant in part the
petition for review and remand.
Contrary to Rojas-Mondragon’s contentions, the agency did not err in
designating Honduras as the country of removal, and considering his claims for
relief only related to Honduras, after Rojas-Mondragon provided testimony and
evidence of his Honduran citizenship. See Hadera v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 1154,
1156 (9th Cir. 2007) (if a noncitizen declines to designate a country, it is proper for
the IJ to order removal “to a country of which the alien is a subject, national or
citizen” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Jang v. Lynch,
812 F.3d 1187, 1192 (9th Cir. 2015) (“to receive asylum, a person of dual
nationality must demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution in both
countries”).
In denying Rojas-Mondragon’s asylum and withholding of removal claims
the agency found he failed to establish Honduran authorities were unwilling or
unable to protect him from the past harm he alleged or fears will occur upon return
because he did not report the mistreatment and failed to establish that doing so
would have been futile. In reaching its conclusion, the agency did not have the
benefit of our decision in Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 16-70518
2017) (en banc). Thus, we grant the petition for review and remand Rojas-
Mondragon’s asylum and withholding of removal claims to determine the impact,
if any, of this decision. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per
curiam).
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Rojas-Mondragon’s remaining
contentions.
Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;
REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --